• A Treatise on the English Language

    It seems all too obvious that, in this modern day and age, the English language is being taken for granted. Children and teens no longer need to speak properly to be understood. Abbreviations and acronyms are becoming increasingly popular, and large vocabularies are turning into assets reserved for Scrabble players. The English language is being disrespected with every 'txt,' 'lol,' and 'g2g.'

    I recently attended an eighth grade graduation. During the ceremony, a letter by each graduate was passed to his or her parents, and as two letters were opened in the row in front of me, I could not help but look. I was appalled to see, beside the sloppy writing, that the parents had been given an example of just how little their children had learned in their eight years of education. I turned away from one letter that read, "Dear Moms and Dad, u were always their 4 me. Thnx," and saw a sentence that was, barely legibly, written, "I no u spended al of ur time helpin me."

    Even after eight years of English class, and a longer time of being exposed to popular literature, including Harry Potter and Gossip Girl, these teens were writing a formal letter as if they were chatting with friends over an instant messaging program. Not only did the letters impress upon me a realization that the English language has been denegrated so severely, they helped me to create a personal respect for the language. And, with such a reverence in place, I proceeded to delve into my own experience and determine, for myself, what the English language truly was.

    The English language is not, as many see it, simply a set of letters and sounds that, when combined properly, form words. The English language is an entity of emotion and meaning that is expressed through a series of sounds and syllables, a medium by which we, its speakers, can express our feelings and thoughts. The English language has far surpassed being a plentiful list of words and definitions.

    In order to clearly demonstrate my philosophy of the English language's true being, I will offer a list of words and phrases: victory, finally, dream come true. This short list of words all represents more than just an intangible definition, it conveys emotions and feelings. Each word is a symbol of certain emotional responses that are brought up within the reader depending on his or her personal understanding of the word or phrase. The word "finally" may, for some, instill a feeling of relief, while to others it may express joy. It may even, as some readers have said, induce a sense of fatigue or exhaustion.

    The English language is less a group of letters and sounds, and more a key to expression. While, in speech, a man may represent his emotion through his tone of voice, in writing that same man is forced to resort to his vocabulary in order to express the same emotion. Instead of relying on his heavy breathing and strained voice to express his tired state as he says, "I crossed the finish line," he must convey his feeling through his knowledge of the language. On paper, the statement "I crossed the finish line" is devoid of any emotional key. One reader may view the speaker as dejected, as though the speaker felt disappointed about not crossing the finish line first; another reader may see the same statement as being said with joy and enthusiasm. If the speaker were to insert a word like "finally" into his statement, however, both readers would gain an understanding that the speaker is at least somewhat tired.

    I hope to demonstrate my philosophy even more interactively by, referring to the previous statement, "I crossed the finish line, finally," asking the reader to mentally express to himself or herself the feeling and image that the statement invokes. I expect that to many, the statement can sound dejected, or fatigued; I also expect that some readers may express a feeling of joy or relief, and perhaps a combination of any of these emotions. The English language has much more to offer than vocabulary, if we are open enough to accept it.

    To help the reader to accept this philosophy more readily, I would like to offer one more exercise. Some words of the English language are known for being difficult to describe, like the word "why." While a few readers may be able to provide a clear definition of the word, many will simply describe the word as 'something you know, but can't explain.' My exercise is simple. I ask the reader to express the emotions or feelings that the word "why" instills. I feel that the word "why" evokes from me the feelings of uncertainty and curiosity, as well as a subtle interest. While those feelings alone do not define the word "why," they provide me with an understanding of the word, and what it represents.

    My hope is that this beautiful entity can be understood properly by all of those who utilize its power. The English language is an uncontainable, sublime being that we, its speakers, have taken far too easily. With a proper knowledge of the language, however, and a necessary respect that such an important part of our species demands, I believe that we as a people can take the next step toward advancing the human race.

    Addendum I:

    After my first experience of posting this essay on the internet, I feel I have much to expand upon. My exposure to the extent of language’s degeneration is far more limited than I had originally believed; within one week of posting the essay, I was introduced to the following arguments: “If the point of [language] is emotional expression, then it doesn’t really matter how you write it;” “What exactly would be wrong if ‘I luv U’ replaced ‘I love you’;” “Does the emotional power of ‘I luv U’ change if it’s written as such?” The most shocking comment I received, however, was, “Why should we care if people write horrendously like that?”

    To keep myself from repeating reasoning, I believe I can consolidate the first three arguments. Both question the emotionality of language, and whether it would be affected by the steady loss of respect for grammar and spelling; one answer can suffice: Yes.

    Yes, reducing words to their phonetic spelling would change the emotional impact, if not to the modern generation then to future generations. The meaning and emotional potency of a given word is dependent on its origin, and by altering a word’s spelling we risk destroying the link to the original word and consequently the word’s ability to evoke emotional responses as I described earlier. The argument over the phonetic spelling of a word may spark debate as well, but that is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

    Consider the universally understood phrase “rendez-vous” (which I may add is used much more often as a single word, “rendezvous”), which originates, through the French, from the Latin words “rendere” [to give back] and “vos” [you]. The understood meaning of the phrase, even to those who cannot explicitly define or translate it, is a meeting or meeting place, which is fairly loyal to the literal translation, “present yourselves.” However, were the phrase to be phoneticized to something along the lines of “ron-day-vew,” all relations to the original words and meanings would be lost.

    If a word has no correlation to anything, what power does it have? Even the most offensive words, or words with offensive, slang definitions, have a definitive history that justifies its being and meaning. “Fruit,” a slang term for a ********** man, is justified through the nature of fruits to be “sweet” and an alternate, older slang definition meaning “eccentric” and later “crazy.” The potency of the word may not come through its origins, but its steady use as a derogatory term has increased the knowledge of the definition and subsequently its power.

    The terms “Bushism,” meaning an unintelligent phrase that is accredited to President George W. Bush, and “kawaii desu,” describing a person who uses the Japanese word “kawaii” as a substitute for the English equivalent “cute,” both have history and a justification for their creation, but the terms are so new that they have neither universal recognition nor a substantial cultural backing which some words inherently rely on (as “Baroque” and “Romantic” do). It is for this reason that some words and phrases are not included in reputable dictionaries, and similarly why other words are. “Za,” an Americanism for “pizza,” is not only in dictionaries like Merriam-Webster’s, but was also recently added to the Official Scrabble Dictionary.

    “Za” originated circa 1970, enough time to become accepted by the public as a word (much the same way “phone” and “wig” became acceptable words). This brings me to respond to a small discussion that was held online after the posting of this essay, one on whether the denigration of language through abbreviations like “lol” or “luv” promoted laziness; during the short debate, it was presented by the negative that “phone” was a shortening of the word “telephone” and therefore laziness has ‘apparently been a part of culture for over one hundred years.’

    I would like to posit that the two forms of abbreviation are entirely unrelated, and that, while terms like “phone” are shortened forms of words brought to being by human laziness (or what we would call ‘efficiency’), they are infinitely more acceptable than terms like “luv.” Whereas “phone” retains its original spelling, therefore preserving its link to the original word, “luv” is a simple phoneticization which destroys its links to its origins (which, for such a commonly used word, is surprisingly complex).

    With the first arguments answered satisfactorily (obviously not, as I fully expect to spark new debate on the subject), I would like to move on to the more troubling final question, “Why should we care if people write horrendously like that?” Why should we not condone the obvious disregard of grammar in language?

    Language is one of the oldest traditions known to man, besides copulation, and is the most fundamental to society. Language has allowed man to communicate with his peers since its creation, and is the basis for democracy, peace, and culture. Without language, man is isolated from both his peers and his enemies, and loses almost all of what makes him more advanced than a monkey (free will being the deciding factor that allows man to surpass the state of animal).

    Much, if not all of society and life as we understand it, is based around language. Without it, democracy and peace could not exist; how could it, if we cannot communicate with our potential enemies, much less our peers? In Orson Scott Card’s books Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind, the humans are forced to fight for survival against a catalytic, deadly virus known as the Descolada. At one point it is remarked that, “If we can learn [the Descolada’s] language, maybe we can make peace with them. Without it, how could we ever find out if it’s killing us out of fear, or out of something primitive?”

    Along with basic communication, language is the foundation of culture. Without a language, there would be no literature, no oral tradition; laws could not be set without a common way of speaking or writing. Were the Ten Commandments given to an illiterate people, there would be no record of them today. Were we still grunting and pointing to express ourselves, nothing that we know would exist; everything from paper, to science, to any math more complex than two-plus-two would never have come to be (and even then, it would not be ‘two-plus-two,’ but perhaps ‘one finger, two finger, three finger…’).

    Language alone has led to more technological and societal advances than would have been possible without it. It is no wonder that two-thirds of the SAT test is based on language. And, specifically, on the grammar and syntax of language.

    Language is strong on its own, but without the rules of the language, it cannot be used properly. Just like sports and games rely on a set of rules to be understood and enjoyed universally, language requires its own set of rules to be comprehensible. Without grammar, the meanings of even the simplest sentences would be entirely warped.

    Take, for example, this sentence: “I want to eat you.” Now, in the way it was written, that statement obviously implies that I am a cannibal, and wish to feast on your body (one could argue that I was using a rather vulgar slang definition of eat, but that one should realize that this paper is not the place for that argument). However, if the sentence were written, “I want you to eat,” most would understand the statement as my wishing for you to eat some food.

    As the last example exposed, even those who disregard the rules of grammar are inexplicably tied to them. They are still dependent on the rules of grammar in speaking, reading, and writing, and expect everyone to follow them; I suppose they could be called hypocrites, using [mostly] proper grammar when asking why it is so important. Though there are many rules of grammar (some of them obscure or seemingly unnecessary depending on the culture and given language), and many people (including myself) have been thoroughly desensitized from years of learning those rules, they are utterly immutable.

    Though language is more complex than many understand, it is the most basic means of survival, growth, and prospering. There is a reason all of the most recognized ancient civilizations had language, and why their cultures are so rich. The history of language is beautifully complex, and with it we are blessed with peace, religion, democracy, literature, and culture that affect us to the point that without them we would still be painting walls and hunting animals with clubs (both of which we still do, admittedly).